Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the extra-extra-for-the-long-weekend dept

So, it turns out the most insightful post of the week (by a long shot) was actually this comment from Marcus Carab about Turntable.fm, but since we already had Marcus turn it into a separate post all on its own, let's just move down the list.

Instead, the official winner this week is Rose M. Welch, responding to the silly story about how some reporter was trying to claim that the hilarious book Go the F**k to Sleep was somehow dangerous to children. Rose did a nice job responding to the ridiculous rhetorical question asked in the article, and clearly the community here agreed with her and gave her the votes:

Imagine if this were written about Jews, blacks, Muslims or Latinos...

I tried. It didn't make any sense, since parents are not caregivers to any of the groups he listed. In fact, since you have to imagine a position of authority over one or more of these grouping to even get to the place where Arredondo apparently is, I'd suggest that he's the one with the problem here.

For far too many kids, the obscenities found in Mansbach's book are a common, everyday household language.

Okay, you know what? Words are just words. It's now what's said, but how it's said that matters. My children aren't going to feel any different about hearing the word 'shit' than they would hearing the word 'yowza', or different about 'damnit' when I stub my toe rather than 'darnit', provided that they have the same inflection. So the words themselves aren't a problem.

However, I understand that what the writer means is that some parents verbally abuse their children as a matter of course, which is irelevant since the parents who do so aren't going to be shocked or amused by this book in the first place.

Again, the writer seems to be the one with the problem. I'm going back to listen to Samuel L. Jackson read the book again. Bye!

Nicely done. Coming in second third was an Anonymous Coward, responding to California politician Leland Yee's plan to counter the Supreme Court's declaration that his anti-violent video game law was unconstitutional by saying he was going to try again with a new law. The AC suggested there was a different law needed:

If the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then there need to be criminal penalties for those politicians who conspire to violate it. On the civil side, the politicians who voted for such laws should be required to reimburse the taxpayers for the legal costs. That would likely end them voting for all these obviously unconstitutional laws in the first place

As for editor's choice, I'm actually going with the next three top voted posts anyway, because they were all good. First up was E. Zachary Knight, responding to someone on that same story as Rose above, when they sided with the person claiming that GtFtS was dangerous. This commenter worried that parents would read the book and think it's okay to talk to children this way -- and EZK set them straight:

I think you miss the point. This book is not advocating parenting tips. This book is a humor book aimed at adults and specifically adults who have kids. It is humorous because it externalizes the inner monolog parents have had late at night when their kids won't sleep.

You won't find this book on the kids book shelf at the book store. You won't find this book in the self help section or the parenting section. You will find this book in the Humor section of book stores. That is what you are supposed to take it as.

If someone reads this book and decides to actually talk to their kids this way, it is a problem with the person not the book

The fucktarded part of this whole mess is that the staturory damages are wholly out of line with reality. By all means, Maisel should be able to sue for damages, even treble damages with lawyer fees awarded. With total sales in the thousands and less than 10% of that attributable to the photo, a payment in mid hundreds would seem quite reasonable.

But no, we’ve allowed Mickey Mouse corporations to extend copyright assignments to last decades and sometimes centuries instead of 14 years. We’ve allowed them to set statutory damages at such an obscenely high level that whole business models are now built around suing for infringing registered works where the underlying works never had commercial value even approaching 1/10 that assigned by the inane copyright regime. We’ve allowed and encouraged industry cartels to band together to sue citizens for tens of thousands of dollars for listening to a $1 song without jumping through the right hoops.

We’ve allowed the corporatists to squeeze the life out of artists such that commercial productions will refuse to quote 20 words of song lyrics in a 20,000 word book without obtaining proper clearances. We’ve allowed whole genres of art to be destroyed, as rap artists and music mashers can no longer create without begging for permission first to modify music in the same way as has been done for millenniums. We’ve gone lifetimes without a single work of art entering the public domain, instead allowing 4th generation descendents to distort their great grandparents work by schilling great works to the Disney or the other high bidder such that these layabouts can profit off the work that belongs to all of society.

And the photogs supporting these laws are the most fucktarded of all, because if they don’t realize that we’re the next target for “permission based” copyright maximalists, then you haven’t been paying attention.

I'm a photographer, and I whole-heartedly agree with you here Mike. I commented about this back on the post about Mr. Brainwash and the Run DMC photo. It's interesting to me that most of these cases (see also the Obama/Fairey issue) seem to involve portraits of famous people where the creative contribution by the photographer has been pretty minimal. The interest and value of the photograph relies extremely heavily on its subject matter and the subject matter's cultural achievements - something the photographer had nothing to do with it. I find it incredibly egotistical that portrait photographers think they deserve such heavy control over what sometimes just amounts to a choice of how to frame a scene. That's not to say that Maisel's photograph isn't excellent - it is - but if it were the exact same photograph of a completely unknown jazz musician, would anyone care about it? Would it have any value? Would anyone want to recreate it in the first place? Of course not. Just as the pixel art recreation owes everything to the original photograph, the original photograph owes everything to Miles Davis. This is why I think celebrity portraiture (and most photography) is a transformative art in its own way, making it very hypocritical to cry lawsuit when someone transforms your transformation. And I am saying this as someone who's done a TON of this type of photography, as well as other types of photography that owe everything to the subject matter (scenery, monuments, events, etc). There is a lot of talent and skill and art involved in capturing a person or a scene - but at the end of the day you're transforming something that already exists, and you'd be wise to keep that in mind when someone transforms your transformation.

Okay. Lots of insight, but everyone always seems more interested in the funny, so let's move on. We had a first place tie (I can't remember if that's happened before), so these two comments will share first place. First up, we had Hothmonster explaining his experience with the TSA:

I wear my jeans a little oversized so without my belt they started to slide off when he started the pat down. He asked me to hold them up, so at first I did. He started in back then moved around front and went down on his knees to check my ankles and I couldn't resist, I let those suckers drop. So he is on his knees in front of me with my boxers about an inch from his head and he looks up, we make eye contact and I wink.

Now I am not a insecure guy to begin with and in the state I was in at the time I wouldnt have been embarrassed if he asked me to wear my cock like a wristwatch but this guy was not a happy camper. I made a few snide remarks as well and in retrospect I feel a little bad because I know this guy did not want to do this. But I definitely think that my lack of embarrassment in these situations means I should push the issue a bit. This guy didn't want to grope me to begin with and a few comments insinuating he is gay/i'm enjoying it certainly don't make him feel any better about what he is asked to do to make a living. Eventually maybe enough employees will complain/quit/strike that they can't fill these spots. Or they will fill them with guys who like touching balls which might get some conservative/religious/republican groups a little more involved in this issue.

Imagine some uptight senator getting patted down by a guy in a pink shirt with a rainbow belt, a lisp, purple gloves with a unicorn logo and frosted tips who lifts his balls and says something like "Im not sure you can carry that package on, we might have to store it in the rear.

Oooooh, imagine what a threat THAT shit would be! It seems like there's only one solution to make sure that Al Qaeda is not infiltrating the TSA.

Now announcing the TSASA (Pronounced Sah-sah, to make it fun). Yes, the Transportation Saftey Administration Safety Administration will carry out its duty (ha ha, I said duty) to proactively screen, monitor, and scrotum-twist TSA employees on a random basis.

Step one of this procedure is a pre-employment screening and background check. Once passed, the candidate will be hired on an interim basis, during which he/she is subject to random searches, nudie-scans, and beatings. After three months of this interim employment, the candidate is then considered a vetted employee and may forgoe these checks in favor super-painful ongoing testicle scans (SPOTS, like on puppies, you fools!) and random anal cavity exams (RACE, but this won't be fast, bitch).

With the TSASA (SAH-SAH!!!), you can rest assured that the TSA will be free from Al Qaeda terrorists and octegarian grandmothers wearing diapers (you ever sat next to one of those stink bomb ladies? They're the real terrorists, I can assure you).

But wait, what if Al Qaeda infiltrates the TSASA....

For editor's choice we've got some extras which I think are really fantastic to hopefully tide you over for the long weekend... First up, we've got Marcus Carab explaining how the "internal review" of the police officers who harassed a woman for filming them will go. He explains that there will be consequences:

Consequences? Oh, you better believe there are consequences. First, they face the harrowing experience of an internal review, where highly sympathetic investigators give them total benefit of the doubt. Their fellow officers will each be rigorously interviewed, and their denials that they saw anything will only be accepted after the third or fourth repetition. Then it is entirely possible they will be smacked with the staggering punishment of paid suspension, or a transfer to an administrative job. The truly egregious offenders may end up in court, where their charges will be whittled down to the most meaningless of scraps until they are released and sent back to work where the rest of the force will be waiting with cake.

Example: the math problem is 1 + 5 but you make two mistakes when writing it down

1) you use 11 instead of 1
2) you use a (-) instead of a (+)

The result is 6, which is right despite your two wrongs

Can't refute that, now can you?

Nick Dynice got me to laugh by responding to the post about two people drawing stick figures and using the phrase "it's crazy" and questions of whether or not that's copying, but adding his own imagery to the mix:

And, finally, we have an Anonymous Coward, who has now given my all-time, absolute favorite response to someone posting in our comments making absolutely no sense at all:

Please, use the doll to show the court where the Internet touched you.

Anyway, we're off tomorrow for the 4th of July holiday, so go enjoy some fireworks and barbecue, and we'll be back on Tuesday.

Re: Re: Re:

"For editor's choice we've got some extras which I think are really fantastic to hopefully tide you over for the long weekend... First up, we've got Marcus Carab explaining how the "internal review" of the police officers who harassed a woman for filming them will go. "

Do you know that if you attack/assault a police officer, the legal consequences against you are worse than if you attacked another citizen?

It should be the other way around. It's the police officers job to be able to protect themselves and its citizens and the laws should protect the citizens more. Whereas citizens have no duty that requires the ability to be able to defend oneself and others. Police officers signed up to the potential danger that being a police officer could cause them, but not a citizen, while citizens are the ones paying police officers to protect us.

If anything, the law should protect the citizens from oppressive government more than it protects government from the people. But all of our laws are backwards. Just like infringement costs more than fraudulently claiming 'ownership' over IP that one does not own. According to our broken laws, infringement is a greater crime than fraud.

The laws that protect the rich, and the government, have steeper penalties than the laws that protect the citizens.

Refuted!

Can't refute that, now can you?

Those are mere "mistakes", not "wrongs". "Wrong", as used in the saying, implies intent, like in the phrase "deeply wronged". Another way of expressing the meaning of the saying would be, "two bad deeds don't make a good deed". Therefore, accidental math errors don't qualify as an exception to the rule.

(Never underestimate the capacity for pedantry of people on the internet. :P)

Re: Refuted!

Alright, accept this then:

One employee who's off before closing, takes $40 from the cash, and puts it in the tip, knowing that the idiot who closes will have to face the missing $40 or tell the others that he lost $40 of tips, somehow.

One assistant manager who hates her employees, empties the tip jar, with about $42 in it, (slow day), into the cash.

Marcus having the most insightful comment (on what is pretty much a freetard wet dream) pretty much sums up how this place goes. I don't know if it's sad or funny, but it is certainly a double facepalm sort of thing.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Marcus, as always you sort of miss the point. What you propose is that the vast majority of all things be free, without costs, and without controls, so you can pick up a few pennies at the end.

It's the freetard mentality. You want the right to remix anything, you want the right to reuse anything, you want the right to claim it as your own, and sell it for a fraction of it's true value, all in the name of "art". What it is in fact is all in the name of "lazy".

I was listening to a local jazz station this morning, and they have a wonderful, enjoyable version of the Beatles "drive my car" done acapella. Very enjoyable, very unique... and yet I was struck by how much is lost here. These are talented people who spent their time to cover ground already covered, rather than taking the time to apply their talents to something new. They aren't even remix artists, just cover artists, and I still feel sort of like part of their efforts are wasted. You can imagine what I think of some guy with a computer calling himself a DJ because he can blend two songs together in software.

The lack of respect for the original artists, and for the people who made it possible for those artists to get known and to be valuable enough to cover, remix, whatever... that is what is truly annoying. Your lack of respect for artists is palpable.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's the freetard mentality. You want the right to remix anything, you want the right to reuse anything, you want the right to claim it as your own, and sell it for a fraction of it's true value, all in the name of "art". What it is in fact is all in the name of "lazy".

I already have the right to remix anything because it's fair use, as much as the media conglomerates wish it was different.

I already had the right to reuse anything before DMCA and DRM took it away.

I claim new montages of old material as my own because they're my montages using other materials.

All selling is based on perceived value, not necessarily the price you want.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It is amazing to me that, immediately after dismissing all cover and remix artists with a snooty paragraph about how the art they love creating is somehow beneath them, you accuse me of having a lack of respect for artists. It is amazing to me that you can think of a piece of art as "wonderful" and "enjoyable" and yet still spit on it.

The difference between you and me is that I respect all artists, and you only respect some artists based on some arrogant standard of originality you hold. The fact that you think I have a respect problem is kind of hilarious - I mean, read your comment back to yourself. Which one of us is vocally disrespecting artists we don't like, and which one is fighting for more art?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You always make a big mistake that I am dismissing them. I am not. They are skilled in their own ways. I just think that it is less than completely creative to just re-paint someone else's painting, when the same time could be spent create something new instead.

I respect their skills, I just don't have the same respect for some of their choices. I think that the respect is held for artists who actually take the time to try to create something new, without using a copy of or a sample from someone else's completed work.

I am fighting for more new art, and you are fighting for more repetition of art. You want innovation by adding rap verses over classic rock songs, and I want more new real songs.

I just don't think you have any respect for artist who create from scratch, your heros all know how to sample and push buttons. Only one of those groups can make something new without someone else's completed artwork as a starting point.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

the ironic part of all this is that alot of "new" art these days would be illegal due to copyrights ("Ghost works")

it's also pretty ignorant to say that a remix cannot be a "new" work, all art is derivative/remixed on some level, & you can add new things to a pre-existing work, or dust it off improve it a bit and make it new again

i have great respect for artists who make good use of existing content, it's actually MUCH harder to make something out of old stuff than it is to just make something new, you talk about talent, creativity and skill, i say there's no shortage or lack of potential of it in re-use, there may even be more

*I* personally want to see more reuse of pre-existing content, instead of more and more new crap that i am unfamiliar with further burying the old in a pile of obscurity to be lost forever

i sure do have respect for artists who create from scratch, but i often find their methods are highly inefficient and wasteful, it's like why re-invent the wheel?

i am fight for new art no matter if it's a remix entirely of old content, totally new or a conglomerate of old and new, without need of permission culture or laws getting in the way of creativity

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

New you say, tell us where will someone find inspiration for something new?

Oh that is right, people go to listen to free folk music, they redo free open stories, how many adaptations of snow white there are?

Classics like Star Wars are remixes of old films, everybody took a little something from somewhere and made it into something.

Will people reinvent monsters? Why can't people make a new monster every year? Why is always about vampires, wolfmen and ghosts?

You are not fighting for the new, you are fighting for the hypocrisy of the supposed new that don't want to give credit were credit is due and want even to make it illegal to give credit because to do so will incur tremendous costs.

Yes people should make a living, but they also should be free to mix and match to create new forms of expression, and that is not going to happen in the actual crazy state of things.

Show me something "new" and I will show you were it is derived from.

Ancient stories and legends didn't appear from the ether they were born from centuries of other stories and cultures, to try and create something new everytime is like to try and add new particles to the universe everytime you want to create something it doesn't work that way.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You seem to think you know an awful lot about me. It's kind of creepy. I don't think I have any musicians I'd call "heroes" for one thing - but in terms of my favourite musicians, as many are "original" artists (by your stupid definition) as are remix artists. I tend to cite remix artists here a lot since that is the realm of music people like you are always attacking, but that's far from all I enjoy. Among my favourite "original" artists (though, again, i reject the idea that remix artists are any less original) are artists like Leonard Cohen, Joanna Newsom, Phil Elvrum, Jeff Magnum - all renowned "orignal" songwriters. So please don't presume to tell me what I do and don't respect.

The simple fact is, I believe that when Dangermouse mashes Beatles samples together with Jay-Z verses, or a jazz band like the one you belittle takes a classic tune and re-imagines it as an acapella performance, that they are being just as original and just as creative. Obviously you reject that idea, because obviously we have fundamentally different philosophies about art and creativity.

I'm not here to try to rewrite your belief system - yours sounds like a cold, lonely, cynical little world when it comes to art. You see a service like turntable.fm, where people are coming together and sharing music and discussing it and making new friends and having a generally awesome time - fulfilling the exact purpose that music has fulfilled since it was nothing but primitive tribal rhythms, but doing so in a strange but astonishing modern way that transcends borders and physical limitations - and all you can do is come up with a million reasons why it's wrong? Forgive me for saying, but what the hell is the matter with you? And then you have the audacity to stand there and tell me that I'm disrespecting art? Your vanity and your doublethink know no bounds.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I was listening to a local jazz station this morning, and they have a wonderful, enjoyable version of the Beatles "drive my car" done acapella. Very enjoyable, very unique... and yet I was struck by how much is lost here. These are talented people who spent their time to cover ground already covered, rather than taking the time to apply their talents to something new. They aren't even remix artists, just cover artists, and I still feel sort of like part of their efforts are wasted.

You know, I was thinking the same thing recently about the Beatles themselves. I mean, seriously, think of all the "wasted efforts" they had:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You just did what you always do, trying to take something way too far. What is amusing is that you point to a list that is mostly live performance (BBC live stuff) as well as stuff only released in the anthology records 20+ years later.

Let's not let facts get in the way of you attempting to broad brush an issue and make it go away. Certainly their occassional cover song on an album entirely negates all the original music they made.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You just did what you always do, trying to take something way too far.

No. I think that's what you did. You heard *one* cover song by a group and insisted they were wasting their lives.

You have no clue if they've done more. You just made a stupid assumption, and I've called you on it. But rather than admit you were caught, you try to move the goalposts.

What is amusing is that you point to a list that is mostly live performance (BBC live stuff) as well as stuff only released in the anthology records 20+ years later.

You conveniently skip over the massive number of covers on their early albums. I wonder why? Perhaps because it proves you wrong.

Let's not let facts get in the way of you attempting to broad brush an issue and make it go away.

Who's using the broadbrush, kiddo? You, who claims that because you heard *one* cover song by a group, that they're wasting their lives and not creative? Or me, who uses a specific example to point out how silly such a claim is?

Certainly their occassional cover song on an album entirely negates all the original music they made.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I am impressed by your skills, that is for sure. Ignore the forest, pick a tree. It fails to address the gist of the overall discussion and concept, but hey, you proved that tree ain't right. With one wrong tree, the rest of the forest must be bad too!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Nope, I am saying that taking my comments and extending the context to the breaking point in a single direction is sort of meaningless, a distraction, and an attempt to avoid answering the original points.

You don't have to make up bullshit Marcus. Everything you post is already grade A.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Funny, because it always seems to shut you up. Above, as usual, you ran away after being proven wrong in an argument (this time about your unfounded assumption that I only listen to remix artists)

You do that every time. It's kind of amusing - you are like a mouthy little kid who acts all tough then pees his pants when someone actually pushes back. And then a day (and a rinse cycle) later he is telling everyone about the fight he "won"

I admit - the ability to flee from arguments you are losing must make anonymity addictive, so I can see why you love it so much.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh Marcus, you are such a whiner.

My original point stands: I would have preferred to hear these talented people making original music, applying their incredible skills and talents towards making something truly new, not going over the same ground that so many have covered before.

I think of it as an incredible waste of their very large talents.

Would you care to address that point? Or are you just going to stand on the sidelines with a bag of salt, looking for a wound to work on?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Good, I'm glad we've cleared this up. So, to summarize: You believe things are only "creative" or "original" if they are 100% new, using absolutely no elements of previous works at all, and bearing no similarities to anything else on the planet. I doubt many people would agree with you, but at least we know where you stand.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Nope, you got it wrong, so sorry.

Let me summarize: You are trying to paint me into a very small corner, which does not accurately reflect my views. You are a failure, because you are way to obvious in your attempts to turn my opinions into bizarre absolutes.

You aren't anywhere near as good as Mike is. He has the snark factor down good, you just sound like a freetard whiner (who makes his living off of copyrighted materials).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Lol, I'M reducing things to absolutes? You are the one who thinks they can draw a line in the sand between what's original and what isn't. You still don't seem to get the fact that all art is derivative to some degree. You're the one with an absolutism problem, buddy.

And honestly, are you thinking about stalking me or something? You claim to know an awful lot about me - my music tastes, the details of how I make my living... What's up with you dude? You keep getting everything wrong, so it doesn't really matter, but it's pretty weird. Why are you so obsessed with me? I mean, I'm flattered, but I don't date morons.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The song itself is old, the structure, the musical patterns, and all that same with it are old. Their skills (think Bobby McFarren with way more talent) are very interesting and the results very unique, but the song itself was old, over done, covered too often, and not unique at all.

I know it must hurt your pea brain to have to think about it, but things can be unique but not new.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Michael Jackson was the first person to do the moonwalk.
Alien Ant Farm redoing Michaels song "Annie" is not original.
Usher using Michael Jackson's moves isn't an advancement of music.

Let's try another tact here.

Elvis Presley was KNOWN for using soul music.
Jazz is all about one upping and freestyling riffs, rolls, and bass beats.
And don't get me started on Eminem using music. Matter of fact, there's so many remixes of songs going on, that's why George Clinton is embroiled in a battle right now!

Maybe one more time...
The Beatles used covers as shown.
Grey Mouse remixed the Beatles and makes his own music.
And look at Gnarls Barkley who teams up with Grey Mouse.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Michael Jackson was the first person to do the moonwalk.
Alien Ant Farm redoing Michaels song "Annie" is not original.
Usher using Michael Jackson's moves isn't an advancement of music.

Let's try another tact here.

Elvis Presley was KNOWN for using soul music.
Jazz is all about one upping and freestyling riffs, rolls, and bass beats.
And don't get me started on Eminem using music. Matter of fact, there's so many remixes of songs going on, that's why George Clinton is embroiled in a battle right now!

Maybe one more time...
The Beatles used covers as shown.
DJ Danger Mouse remixed the Beatles (Grey Album) and makes his own music.
And look at Gnarls Barkley who teams up with Danger Mouse.

Sick

Imagine if this were written about Jews, blacks, Muslims or Latinos...

Yes Rose, I am sure the world and especially the US would be far better off if you did not have that 'nasty 4' groups that you have been so we'll trained to hate.

So you are ok with everyone, as long as they do not have a different color or a different belief system,,,, RIGHT !!!..

I guess it is fortunate that America has it's very own race and it's very own unique religion... oh wait !!!!

So speaking profanities in front of small children is ok because 'you' think it is, and it is ok for you to justify that as long as you can gain some points by feeding the bias and racist attitudes that you 'Americans' have...

Re: Sick

Imagine if this were written about Jews, blacks, Muslims or Latinos...

Yes Rose, I am sure the world and especially the US would be far better off if you did not have that 'nasty 4' groups that you have been so we'll trained to hate.

Were you waiting with baited breath for me to finally write something that you can take exception with? Because that's the only explanation I can think of for you jumping the gun this way, lol.

Go back. RTFA. Then read my comment in context. You'll see that the sentence in question was very obviously written by someone else. So... You're an idiot.

So you are ok with everyone, as long as they do not have a different color or a different belief system,,,, RIGHT !!!..

I'm okay with everyone, period. However, this is irrelevant since the sentence you're upset with was written by someone else.

I guess it is fortunate that America has it's very own race and it's very own unique religion... oh wait !!!!

I'm at least one of the things listed in that sentence, and my close relatives are two more. Not that you care, because you're only commenting in a sad attempt to score points against me, a practical stranger on the Internet.

I guess it is fortunate that America has it's very own race and it's very own unique religion... oh wait !!!!

For what? You to make sense? Believe me, I'm not holding my breath for that outcome.

So speaking profanities in front of small children is ok because 'you' think it is,

I never use profanity in front of my children, but you use profanity frequently. Oh, wait. You meant words like 'shit' and 'damn'? Oh. I meant mangling language and logic, both of which are sacred to me. Amusingly, you now have the choice of respecting my unique beliefs and agreeing that your posts are profane or proving yourself to be a hypocrite. :)

and it is ok for you to justify that as long as you can gain some points by feeding the bias and racist attitudes that you 'Americans' have...

Ironically, all you've done is show your own biased attitudes against an entire country of diverse and unique people.